Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Some Discrete Competition Models and the

Competitive Exclusion Principle

J.M. CUSHING
a,
*, SHEREE LEVARGE
a
, NAKUL CHITNIS
a
and
SHANDELLE M. HENSON
b
a
Department of Mathematics, Program on Applied Mathematics, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA;
b
Department of Mathematics, Andrews University, Berrien Springs,
MI 49104, USA
(Received 6 May 2003; In nal form 11 November 2003)
Dedicated to Professor Saber Elaydi on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday
Adifference equation model, called that Leslie/Gower model, played a key historical role in laboratory experiments that
helped establish the competitive exclusion principle in ecology. We show that this model has the same dynamic
scenarios as the famous Lotka/Volterra (differential equation) competition model. It is less well known that some
anomalous results fromthe experiments seemtocontradict the exclusionprinciple andLotka/Volterra dynamics. We give
an example of a competition model that has non-Lotka/Volterra dynamics that are consistent with the anomalous case.
Keywords: Difference equations; Global stability; Competition models; Competitive exclusion principle;
Leslie/Gower model; Lotka/Volterra dynamics
AMS Nos: 39A11; 92D40
INTRODUCTION
A fundamental tenet in theoretical ecology is the competitive exclusion principle.
According to this tenet, two similar species competing for a limited resource cannot coexist;
one of the species will be driven to extinction. This principle is supported by many
mathematical models, the most famous of which is the Lotka/Volterra differential equation
model for two competing species. It is well known that the Lotka/Volterra model allows just
four dynamic scenarios, all of which involve only equilibria as possible asymptotic states.
A coexistence case (in the form of a globally asymptotically stable equilibrium) occurs if the
competition between the species is weak. If, however, the inter-species competition is
sufciently strong, then competitive exclusion occurs (in the form of an equilibrium state
possessing one zero component). The competitive exclusion case has three possible
dynamic scenarios, depending upon relationships among the model coefcients. Two of
these scenarios are symmetric cases that have globally attracting equilibria in which one
species is absent. The third, and nal scenario, has an unstable (saddle) coexistence
Journal of Difference Equations and Applications
ISSN 1023-6198 print/ISSN 1563-5120 online q 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/10236190410001652739

This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant DMS 9973126.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: cushing@math.arizona.edu
Journal of Difference Equations and Applications,
Vol. 10, No. 1315, November December 2004, pp. 11391151
equilibrium whose stable manifold determines two basins of attraction, one for each of the
competitive exclusion equilibria. In this saddle case, the species that goes extinct is
determined by the initial conditions of both species.
During the 1940s, 50s and 60s, laboratory experiments played a key role in establishing the
competitive exclusion principle in theoretical ecology. One series of laboratory studies, which
today is still cited in text books, was conducted by Park and Mertz using two species of our
beetles (of the genus Tribolium) [3740]. Park and his collaborators, Leslie and Gower, used a
difference equation model in these studies, rather than the Lotka/Volterra differential equations
[26]. Although they did not give a mathematical analysis of their model, they worked under the
assumption that it possesses the same dynamic scenarios as the Lotka/Volterra model.
It is interesting that although Parks experiments were considered a validation of the
competitive exclusion principle, there were some anomalous results. In one experiment
competitive exclusion did not always occur. Whether competitive coexistence occurred
or competitive exclusion occurred (and how) depended on the initial population numbers given
the two species. This result puzzled Park and his collaborators, since this dynamic scenario is not
allowed by Lotka/Volterra-type competition models which guided their thinking [14,27].
A natural question to examine, from a mathematical point of view, is whether or not there exist
any two species competition models that allow for such a multiple attractor, coexistence/exclu-
sion case. Anumber of studies involving competition models have, under certain circumstances,
found results of non-Lotka/Volterra type or that contradicted the competitive exclusion principle
in one way or another [2,58,10,13,20,2224,28,29,3136,41,42]. None of these results,
however, involve the multiple attractor scenario described above.
The Leslie/Gower competition model was studied by Liu and Elaydi, who showed that all
bounded orbits converge to an equilibrium in an eventually monotonic manner (using the
theory of discrete monotone ows) [30]. In this paper we will extend this result by showing
that the Leslie/Gower model has the same dynamic scenarios as the Lotka/Volterra model
(characterizing these cases according to model parameters). We will also investigate a
competition model that does conform not to the Lotka/Volterra cases and that allows for
multiple, coexistence and exclusion, attractors.
THE LESLIE/GOWER MODEL
If b . 1 all solutions of the Beverton/Holt equation
x
t1
b
1
1 c
11
x
t
x
t
with x
0
. 0 tend (monotonically) to the equilibrium x b 21=c
11
: This difference
equation is an appropriate analog of the logistic differential equation [12]. Just as the famous
Lotka/Volterra two species (differential equation) competition model is a modication of the
logistic differential equation, the Leslie/Gower (difference equation) competition model [26]
x
t1
b
1
1
1 c
11
x
t
c
12
y
t
x
t
y
t1
b
2
1
1 c
21
x
t
c
22
y
t
y
t
is a modication of the Beverton/Holt equation. In this model all coefcients are positive and
we can therefore scale x and y so that c
11
c
22
1: Without loss in generality we consider
J.M. CUSHING et al. 1140
the system
x
t1
b
1
1
1 x
t
c
1
y
t
x
t
1
y
t1
b
2
1
1 c
2
x
t
y
t
y
t
2
where b
i
. 0 and c
i
. 0: We denote solutions of this system by x
t
; y
t
; t 0; 1; 2; 3; . . .:
(For some results concerning difference equations dened by rational functions see
Refs. [3,4,25]. The results in these papers do not apply to the Leslie/Gower model, however.
Other papers that deal with discrete competition models include [1619].)
In population dynamic applications we are interested in solutions with non-negative
components x
t
$ 0; y
t
$ 0: Let R
2

z 0; 1 0; 1 and

R
2

z 0; 1 0; 1
f : x; y ! b
1
1
1 x c
1
y
x; b
2
1
1 c
2
x y
y
_ _
takes R
2

into itself. The same is true of



R
2

and of the coordinate axes 0; 1 {0} and


{0} 0; 1: Moreover, all solutions in R
2

are forward bounded. Specically,


f : R
2

!S z 0; b
1
0; b
2
: It follows from Proposition 1 in Ref. [30] that all orbits in
R
2

approach an equilibrium as t !1:


The map f is also invertible on R
2

; since for x
0
; y
0
[ S in the range of f the equations
b
1
1
1 x c
1
y
x x
0
; b
2
1
1 c
2
x y
y y
0
have the unique solution
x
b
2
21 c
1
D
; y
b
1
21 c
2
D
where
b
1
z
b
1
x
0
. 1; b
2
z
b
2
y
0
. 1; D z b
1
21b
2
21 2c
1
c
2
(the range of f is dened by the inequality D . 0). The formulas for the pre-images x and y
show the inverse f
21
continuous.
Lemma 1 The map f : R
2

!S is oneone and bicontinuous.


The points E
0
: 0; 0; E
1
: b
1
21; 0; E
2
: 0; b
2
21 are xed points of the map f (i.e.
are equilibria of the Leslie/Gower model (1) and (2)). These are exclusion equilibria.
The set of points whose x-coordinate is held xed by the map f is the line x c
1
y
b
1
21: If this line intersects

R
2

(i.e. if b
1
. 1), we denote the resulting line segment by L
1
.
Similarly, if b
2
. 1; the points on the line segment L
2
from the line c
2
x y b
2
21 lying in
R
2

is the set of points in R


2

whose y-coordinate is held xed by the map f. If b


1
. 1 the map
f takes a point x; y [ R
2

lying above (below) L


1
to a point with smaller (larger)
x-coordinate. If b
2
. 1 the map f takes a point x; y [ R
2

lying above (below) L


2
to a point
with smaller (larger) y-coordinate.
The only other xed point of f is
E
3
:
b
2
21
c
1
c
2
21
c
1
2
b
1
21
b
2
21
_ _
;
b
1
21
c
1
c
2
21
c
2
2
b
2
21
b
1
21
_ _ _ _
COMPETITION MODELS AND EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE 1141
This equilibrium lies in R
2

if and only if b
1
. 1; b
2
. 1 and L
1
and L
2
intersect in R
2

:
This is a coexistence equilibrium.
An equilibrium is globally asymptotically stable on R
2

(or

R
2

) if it is locally
asymptotically stable (on R
2
) and if x
0
; y
0
[ R
2

(or

R
2

) implies that x
t
; y
t
tends to the
equilibrium as t !1:
The Jacobian of Eqs. (1) and (2) is
J
2b
1
1
1xc
1
y
2
x b
1
1
1xc
1
y
2b
1
c
1
1
1xc
1
y
2
x
2b
2
c
2
1
1c
2
xy
2
y 2b
2
1
1c
2
xy
2
y b
2
1
1c
2
xy
_
_
_
_
_
_
The Jacobians evaluated at E
0
, E
1
and E
2
are
J
0

b
1
0
0 b
2
_ _
; J
1

1
b
1
1
b
1
1 2b
1
c
1
0
b
2
1b
1
21c
2
_
_
_
_
; J
2

b
1
1b
2
21c
1
0
1
b
2
1 2b
2
c
2
1
b
2
_
_
_
_
respectively. Their eigenvalues appear along the diagonals.
Lemma 2
(a) If b
1
, 1; b
2
, 1 then E
0
is globally asymptotically stable on R
2

:
(b) If b
1
. 1; b
2
, 1 then E
1
is globally asymptotically stable on

R
2

:
(c) If b
1
, 1; b
2
. 1 then E
2
is globally asymptotically stable on

R
2

:
Proof
(a) The eigenvalues of J
0
are less than 1 and E
0
is locally asymptotically stable. Since E
0
is
the only equilibrium in R
2

it follows from the Liu and Elaydis theorem that all solutions
in R
2

converge to E
0
. This can also be seen, more directly, from the inequalities
0 # x
t1
, b
1
x
t
3
0 # y
t1
, b
2
y
t
4
and an induction argument.
(b) The only equilibria in R
2

are E
0
and E
1
. From J
0
we see that E
0
is a saddle. Since the
coordinate axes are invariant, the stable manifold is the y-axis (since by Eq. (4) y
t
!0).
From the stable manifold and Hartman/Grobman theorems for maps [15,21], it follows
that no solution in

R
2

can approach E
0
. By Liu and Elaydis theorem all solutions must
therefore approach E
1
. The eigenvalues of J
1
are less than 1 and E
1
is locally
asymptotically stable.
(c) This symmetric case is proved in manner analogous to case (b). A
From now on we assume b
1
. 1; b
2
. 1: These inequalities imply E
1
and E
2
lie on the
positive x- and y-axis, respectively. We distinguish four cases depending on the orientation
of the line segments L
1
and L
2
as shown in Figure 1. The inequalities satised by the
coefcients that correspond to these cases can be easily read from the relative positions of
the intercepts of L
1
and L
2
in Figure 1. In particular, the following inequalities characterize
J.M. CUSHING et al. 1142
Cases B and C:
Case B : c
1
b
2
21 , b
1
21; c
2
b
1
21 , b
2
21
Case C : c
1
b
2
21 . b
1
21; c
2
b
1
21 . b
2
21:
5
From these inequalities we nd that
c
1
c
2
, 1 holds in Case B
c
1
c
2
. 1 holds in Case C:
6
Lemma 3 Assume b
1
. 1 and b
2
. 1: The equilibrium E
0
is a repellor. For i 1; 2 the
equilibrium E
i
is locally asymptotically stable in Cases A
i
and C, but is a saddle in Cases A
j
j i and B. In the latter two cases, the stable manifold of the saddle E
i
is the positive
coordinate axis on which it lies. Equilibrium E
3
is locally asymptotically stable in Case B
and is a saddle in Case C.
Proof The eigenvalues of J
0
are b
1
. 1; b
2
. 1 and E
0
is therefore a repellor.
The eigenvalue 1/b
1
of J
1
is less than one. Solutions starting on the positive x-axis
satisfy the Bervton/Holt equation (with b
1
. 1) and therefore approach E
1
. The second
eigenvalue
b
2
1 c
2
b
1
21
is less than one in Cases A
1
and C and greater than one in Cases A
2
and B. A similar
calculation shows the result for E
2
.
FIGURE 1 The four possible orientations of L
1
and L
2
.
COMPETITION MODELS AND EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE 1143
Finally, we consider the equilibrium E
3
, at which the Jacobian is
J
3

c
1
c
2
b
1
2c
1
b
2
c
1
21
b
1
c
1
c
2
21
c
1
b
1
2c
1
b
2
c
1
21
b
1
c
1
c
2
21
c
2
2c
2
b
1
b
2
c
2
21
b
2
c
1
c
2
21
2c
2
b
1
c
2
c
1
b
2
c
2
21
b
2
c
1
c
2
21
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
:
This equilibrium is locally asymptotically stable if the Jury conditions
jtr J
3
j , 1 det J
3
, 2
hold, where det J
3
is the determinant and tr J
3
is the trace of J
3
[1]. If at least one of these
inequalities is reversed, then the equilibrium is unstable. The inequalities are equivalent to
the following three inequalities
(a) 1 det J
3
, 2
(b) 21 2det J
3
, tr J
3
(c) tr J
3
, 1 det J
3
.
A calculation shows
det J
3

c
2
c
1
21b
1
21 c
1
c
2
21b
2
21 c
1
c
2
21
b
1
b
2
c
1
c
2
21
tr J
3

2b
2
b
1
c
1
c
2
2b
2
c
1
b
2
2c
1
b
2
2
2b
1
c
2
b
1
2c
2
b
2
1
b
1
b
2
c
1
c
2
21
:
Using these formulas, we nd that inequality (a) is equivalent to
b
1
21b
2
21
c
1
b
2
21 2b
1
21
c
1
c
2
21

c
2
b
1
21 2b
2
21
c
1
c
2
21
. 0:
By Eqs. (5) and (6) this inequality holds. Inequality (b) is equivalent to
b
1
1b
2
1 c
2
b
1
1
c
1
b
2
21 2b
1
21
c
1
c
2
21
c
1
b
2
1
c
2
b
1
21 2b
2
21
c
1
c
2
21
.0
which Eqs. (5) and (6) show also holds true. Finally, we consider inequality (c), which it turns
out is equivalent to
c
1
b
2
21 2b
1
21c
2
b
1
21 2b
2
21
c
1
c
2
21
,0:
From Eqs. (5) and (6), we see that this inequality holds in Case B and, as a result, E
3
is locally
asymptotically stable. In Case C, however, the reverse inequality holds and E
3
is unstable.
To see, in the latter case, that E
3
is in fact a saddle we note that the characteristic quadratic
polynomial of J
3
, namely,
pl l
2
2tr J
3
l det J
3
J.M. CUSHING et al. 1144
satises p1 1 2tr J
3
det J
3
, 0 (because the inequality in (c) is reversed in Case C),
p21 1 tr J
3
det J
3
. 0 (because (b) holds), and p1 1: Thus, p(l) has a
positive root l . 1 and a root between 21 and 1. A
Theorem 4 Consider the Leslie/Gower competition model (1) and (2) with b
i
. 1:
Each component x
t
and y
t
of a solution in

R
2

is eventually monotonic.
(a) In Case A
i
, the equilibrium E
i
is globally asymptotically stable on

R
2

:
(b) In Case B, the equilibrium E
3
is globally asymptotically stable on

R
2

:
(c) In Case C, for solution in

R
2

tends to one of the locally asymptotically stable equilibria


E
1
or E
2
or to the saddle equilibrium E
3
as t !1:
Proof Every solution in

R
2

is eventually monotonic and converges to one of the four


equilibria E
i
by Liu and Erlaydis theorem.
(a) The two Cases A
1
and A
2
are symmetric and we consider Case A
1
only. Observe that the
(closed) triangular region E
0
E
1
P is forward invariant under the map f. This follows
from two facts: f is one-to-one and bicontinuous (Lemma 1) and the boundary of E
0
E
1
P
maps into E
0
E
1
P (see Fig. 1). Thus, if a solution starts in the triangle E
0
E
1
P is remains
there and as a result the component x
t
is increasing. It follows that the solution
approaches E
1
. If, on the other hand, x
0
; y
0
[

R
2

lies outside the triangle E


0
E
1
P there
are two options: either the solution sequence x
t
; y
t
enters the triangle in a nite number
of steps, in which case it will remain there and converge to E
1
(as we just proved), or it
remains outside the triangle for all t. In the latter case, the solution can only converge to
E
1
. In summary, x
0
; y
0
[

R
2

implies x
t
; y
t
tends E
1
as t !1: This, together with
Lemma 3, shows E
1
is globally asymptotically stable on

R
2

:
(b) By Lemma 3, E
3
is locally asymptotically stable. The discrete stable manifold and
Hartman/Grobman theorems, together with Lemma 3, imply that no orbit in

R
2

can
approach E
0
, E
1
or E
2
. It follows from Liu and Elaydis theorem that all orbits in

R
2

approach E
3
.
(c) By Lemma 3, E
0
is a repellor and cannot be approached by a solution in

R
2

: A
For case (c) in Theorem 4 we do not have a complete characterization of the basins of
attraction for each equilibrium. From the stable manifold theorem for maps [15,21] we know
the local stable manifold of E
3
is one dimensional (since by Lemma 2 the equilibrium E
3
is a
hyperbolic saddle in Case C), but we do not know if this is globally true in R
2

: We can show
that the basin of attraction of E
1
contains the interior of the closed triangle QE
1
E
3
. To see this
notice that f maps the boundary of the triangle into the triangle: f : QE
1
E
3
!QE
1
E
3
(see Fig. 1). Since f is oneone and bicontinuous, it follows that f : QE
1
E
3
!QE
1
E
3
(i.e. QE
1
E
3
is forward invariant). Solutions starting in (or eventually entering) the interior of
QE
1
E
3
must accordingly approach the equilibrium E
1
. Similarly, one can show that the basin
of attraction of E
2
contains the interior of the triangle PE
2
E
3
.
The four dynamic cases in Theorem 4 (and Fig. 1) are the same as those in the
Lotka/Volterra model and have the same ecological interpretation. Coexistence (Case B)
occurs if interspecic competition is weak in the sense that the coefcients c
i
are small:
c
1
,
b
1
21
b
2
21
; c
2
,
b
2
21
b
1
21
:
COMPETITION MODELS AND EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE 1145
If interspecic competition is too large (one or both inequalities are reversed), then
competitive exclusion occurs. This is the theoretical foundation for the classical competitive
exclusion principle. It is because of this principle that the anomolous case observed in some
of Parks experiments were puzzling. In the next section, we will study a competition model
which does not support this exclusion principlea model which in fact predicts (non-
equilibrium) coexistence when the competition coefcients are increased.
A JUVENILE/ADULT RICKER MODEL
Since the Leslie/Gower competition model (1) and (2) has only the Lotka/Volterra dynamics
described in Theorem 4, this model offers no explanation of the multiple attractor case
(with initial condition dependent coexistence or exclusion) observed by Park. A discrete
competition model that does provide an explanation is the so-called LPA model [1012].
This six dimensional model is based on three life cycle stages for each species and was
derived explicitly to study the dynamics of our beetle species. See Ref. [14] for an account
of the LPA competition model and some of its non-Lotka/Volterra dynamics that contradict
the classical competitive exclusion principle.
A mathematical exploration of competition models that possess multiple attractor cases
with initial condition dependent coexistence or exclusion might start with the Leslie/Gower
model and try to determine what kinds of structural changes in the model will result in
non-Lotka/Volterra dynamics and contradictions to the competitive exclusion principle.
For example, if exponential non-linearities replace the rational function non-linearities of the
Leslie/Gower model, one obtains the Ricker competition model
x
t1
b
1
x
t
exp2c
11
x
t
2c
12
y
t

y
t1
b
2
y
t
exp2c
21
x
t
2c
22
y
t

(exponential non-linearities also appear in the LPA model). Numerical investigations of this
model have uncovered certain kinds of non-Lotka/Volterra dynamics [10], but not a case of
multiple attractors with both coexistence and exclusion. Whether or not such multiple
attractor cases can occur in this system remains an interesting open question.
From a mathematical point of view life cycle stages (such as appear in the LPA model)
introduce time delays. A modication of the Ricker competition model, in which individuals
from one of the two species are characterized by their reproductive maturity, is described by
the difference equations
J
t1
b
1
A
t
exp2c
11
A
t
2c
12
y
t

A
t1
1 2mJ
t
y
t1
b
2
y
t
exp2c
21
J
t
2c
22
y
t
:
7
Here J
t
and A
t
are the numbers of juveniles and adults at time t of the species x. Species y in
this model remains unstructured. The parameter m 0 # m , 1 is the juvenile mortality rate.
In this paper, we will not attempt a thorough analysis of the juvenile/adult Ricker
competition model (7). We will only show that under certain conditions the model possesses
three attractors, two exclusion (equilibrium) attractors and one (non-equilibrium)
coexistence attractor.
J.M. CUSHING et al. 1146
The exclusion equilibria for Eq. (7) are
E
0
: J; A; y 0; 0; 0
E
1
: J; A; y
ln n
c
11
1 2m
;
ln n
c
11
; 0
_ _
E
2
: J; A; y 0; 0;
ln b
2
c
22
_ _
:
Here we have dened n z b
1
1 2m [9]. We assume n . 1; b
2
. 1 so that these equilibria
are non-negative. The Jacobian at E
0
0 b
1
0
2m 1 0 0
0 0 b
2
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
has eigenvalues l b
2
and ^

n
p
: The Jacobian at E
1
0
12ln n
n
b
1
2
b
1
c
12
ln n
c
11
n
1 2m 0 0
0 0 b
2
exp 2
c
21
ln n
c
11
12m
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
has eigenvalues l ^

1 2ln n
p
and b
2
exp(2c
21
ln n/c
11
(1 2 m)). The Jacobian at E
2
0 b
1
e
2
c
12
c
22
ln b
2
0
1 2m 0 0
2
c
21
c
22
ln b
2
0 1 2ln b
2
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
has eigenvalues l ^

n
p
and 1 2 ln b
2
.
Theorem 5 Assume n b
1
1 2m . 1; b
2
. 1 in the juvenile/adult Ricker competition
model (7).
(a) E
0
is a repellor.
(b) E
1
is locally asymptotically stable if
1 , n , e
2
; c
11
1 2m
ln b
2
ln n
, c
21
:
(c) E
2
is locally asymptotically stable if
1 , b
2
, e
2
; c
22
ln n
ln b
2
, c
12
:
The ecological interpretation of the parameter inequalities in Theorem 5(b) and (c) is that
interspecic competition is sufciently strong (as measured by c
12
and c
21
), relative to
intraspecic competition (measured by c
11
and c
22
). This theorem suggests the
Lotka/Volterra or Leslie/Gower saddle case of competitive exclusion (Case C in Fig. 1).
However, it is possible that all the inequalities in Theorem 5 hold and there also exists
COMPETITION MODELS AND EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE 1147
a coexistence attractor. Figure 2 shows an example. In that gure one initial condition
approaches a coexistence two-cycle, while other initial conditions lead to the extinction
equilibria E
1
and E
2
.
It is possible to prove the existence of coexistence two-cycles of the type observed in Figure 2.
Two-cycles are xed points of the composite map dened by the model equations (7)
b
1
1 2mJ exp2c
11
1 2mJ 2b
2
c
12
ye
2c
21
J2c
22
y
J
b
1
1 2mAe
2c
11
A2c
12
y
A
b
2
2
ye
2c
21
J2c
22
y
exp2b
1
c
21
Ae
2c
11
A2c
12
y
2b
2
c
22
ye
2c
21
J2c
22
y
y:
8
Although it is not shown in Fig. 2, the coexistence two-cycle in that example is
synchronous, i.e. the two points of the cycle are of the form
0; A; y
1
; J; 0; y
2
9
with J . 0; A . 0; and y
i
. 0: Synchronous means that the juvenile and adult populations
never appear together at the same point in time. The two-cycle equations (8) with J 0
reduce to the two equations
b
1
1 2me
2c
11
A2c
12
y
1
b
2
2
e
2c
21
J2c
22
y
exp2b
1
c
21
Ae
2c
11
A2c
12
y
2b
2
c
22
ye
2c
21
J2c
22
y
1
FIGURE 2 Three different initial conditions lead to solutions of the juvenile/adult Ricker competition model (7)
that approach three different attractors. (a) The initial condition J
0
; A
0
; y
0
10; 10; 10 results in an orbit that
approaches an equilibrium in which y 0; i.e. this initial condition leads to the extinction of species y. (b) The initial
condition J
0
; A
0
; y
0
5; 5; 10 results in an orbit that approaches an equilibrium in which J A 0; i.e. this
initial condition leads to the extinction of species x. (c) The initial condition J
0
; A
0
; y
0
10; 10; 15 results in an
orbit that approaches a positive two-cycle, i.e. the initial condition leads to the (non-equilibrium) coexistence of
both species. The coefcients in these examples are b
1
b
2
5; c
11
c
22
0:1; c
12
0:11; c
21
0:12; and
m 0:2:
J.M. CUSHING et al. 1148
for A and y. Using the rst equation in the second we can simplify the second equation
b
1
1 2me
2c
11
A2c
12
y
1
b
2
2
exp 2c
22
y 2c
21
1
1 2m
A 2b
2
c
22
ye
2c
22
y
_ _
1:
Solving the rst equation for
A
1
c
11
ln n 2c
12
y 10
substituting this result into the second equation and simplifying, we arrive at the single
equation
b
2
c
22
ye
2c
22
y

c
12
c
21
1 2mc
11
2c
22
_ _
y 2 ln b
2
2
c
21
1 2mc
11
ln b
1
1 2m
_ _
11
for y. A solution y y
1
. 0; together with Eq. (10), yields the rst point in a two-cycle (9).
(If A . 0 then this point is not an equilibrium.) The Eq. (11) can be analyzed geometrically
by investigating the graphs of both sides of the equation for intersection points y . 0: The left
hand side is a positive, one humped graph passing through y 0 and having y 0 as an
asymptote. The right hand side is a straight line whose slope is positive under the
assumptions in Theorem 5(b) and (c). If the y-intercept of the straight line is positive, then
either there are two intersection points of these graphs, no intersection point at all, or a
tangency case of one intersection point. As parameters change and we pass from one to the
other case, a bifurcation occurs at the point of tangency. (We speculate that this is a saddle
node bifurcation with another two-cycle which, because it is not a synchronous cycle, is not
found by the equations above.) See Figure 3 for an illustration. Note that the coexistence two-
cycle is created in this example by increasing the interspecic competition coefcient c
21
!
FIGURE 3 Roots y . 0 of Eq. (9) determine synchronous two-cycles for the juvenile/adult Ricker competition
model (7). The dashed line graph is that of the left hand side of this equation for the parameter values in Fig. 2.
The straight line graphs are the right hand side of the equation for three selected values of the interspecic
competition coefcient c
21
. For the smaller value of c
21
there is no intersection and there exists no synchronous two-
cycle. For the larger value of c
21
, two intersection points exist and give rise to a synchronous two-cycle.
COMPETITION MODELS AND EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE 1149
To establish the triple attractor case of interest (and observed in Fig. 2) we need to prove
the stability of the two-cycle under the conditions of Theorem 5(b) and (c). The two-cycle is
locally asymptotically stable if the eigenvalues of the Jacobian of the composite map are less
than one in magnitude. We can calculate this Jacobian by multiplying the Jacobians of the (7)
evaluated at the two points of the two-cycle. In general, this calculation is intractable, but we
can carry it out for the example in Figure 2. For the parameter values in that example, Eq. (11)
has the two solutions y
1
4:4758 and y
2
14:304 which produce the two-cycle points
(see Eq. (9))
0; 8:9396; 4:4758; 11:1174; 0; 14:304:
The Jacobians of Eq. (7) at these two points, when multiplied, yield the matrix
0:76624 0 0:16554
0 0:82932 0
20:94822 21:7794 20:23776
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
whose eigenvalues l 24:4039 10
22
; 0.57252, and 0.82932 are less than one in
magnitude. The two-cycle is therefore locally asymptotically stable. Since the inequalities
in Theorem 5(b) and (c) are satised by the parameters in this example the two exclusion
equilibria
E
1
: J; A; y 20:118; 16:094; 0
E
2
: J; A; y 0; 0; 16:094
are also locally asymptotically stable.
The juvenile/adult Ricker competition model shows that strong non-linearities and a time
delay can produce a multiple attractor, coexistence/exclusion, scenario. According to our
analysis above this scenario arises from a bifurcation that gives rise to a two-cycle
coexistence state as interspecic competition is increased, which from the point of view of
classical competition theory is unexpected. This same bifurcation scenario occurs in the LPA
model [14]. Thus, we have two examples of competition models that provide dynamics
which contradict classical competition theory in signicant ways. An interesting open
mathematical problem is to determine the types of competition models that possess these
kinds of multiple attractors.
References
[1] H. Caswell, Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis and Interpretation, Second edition, Sinauer
Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2001.
[2] P. Chesson, Coexistence of competitors in spatially and temporally varying environments: a look at the
combined effects of different sorts of variability, Theor. Popul. Biol., 28 (1985), 263287.
[3] D. Clark and M. R. S. Kulenovic, A coupled system of rational difference equations, Comput. Math. Appl., 43
(2002), 849867.
[4] D. Clark, M. R. S. Kulenovic and J. F. Selgrade, Global asymptotic behavior of a two-dimensional difference
equation modelling competition, Nonlinear Anal., 52 (2003), 17651776.
[5] K. M. Crowe, A Discrete Size-Structured Competition Model, Ph.D. dissertation, Interdisciplinary Program in
Applied Mathematics, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1991.
[6] J. M. Cushing, Two species competition in a periodic environment, J. Math. Biol., 10 (1980), 385400.
[7] J. M. Cushing, Periodic Lotka-Volterra systems and time sharing of ecological niches, Lecture Notes in
Biomathematics, 52 Springer, Berlin, 1983, pp. 342348.
[8] J. M. Cushing, Periodic Lotka-Volterra competition equations, J. Math. Biol., 24 (1986), 381403.
J.M. CUSHING et al. 1150
[9] J. M. Cushing, A strong ergodic theorem for some non-linear matrix models for the dynamics of structured
populations, Nat. Res. Modeling, 3 (1989), 331357.
[10] J. M. Cushing, An Introduction to Structured Population Dynamics CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in
Applied Mathematics, Vol. 71, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1998.
[11] J. M. Cushing, The LPA model, Fields Institute Commun., (To appear).
[12] J. M. Cushing, R. F. Costantino, B. Dennis, R. A. Desharnais and S. M. Henson, Chaos in Ecology Theoretical
Ecology Series, Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego, 2003.
[13] J. M. Cushing, M. Saleem, A competition model with age-structure, Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, 54
Springer, Berlin, 1984, pp. 178192.
[14] J. Edmunds, J. M. Cushing, R. F. Costantino, S. M. Henson, B. Dennis and R. A. Desharnais, Parks Tribolium
competition experiments: a non-equilibrium species coexistence hypothesis, J. Anim. Ecol., 72 (2003),
703712.
[15] S. N. Elaydi, An Introduction to Difference Equations, Second Edition, Springer, New York, 1999.
[16] John E. Franke and Abdul-Aziz Yakubu, Mutual exclusion versus coexistence for discrete competitive systems,
J. Math. Biol., 30(2) (1991), 161168.
[17] John E. Franke and Abdul-Aziz Yakubu, Global attractors in competitive systems, Nonlinear Anal., 16(2)
(1991), 111129.
[18] John E. Franke and Abdul-Aziz Yakubu, Geometry of exclusion principles in discrete systems, J. Math. Anal.
Appl., 168(2) (1992), 385400.
[19] John E. Franke and Abdul-Aziz Yakubu, Exclusionary population dynamics in size-structured, discrete
competitive systems, J. Diff. Eqns Appl., 5(3) (1999), 235249.
[20] H. I. Freedman, J. H. So and P. Waltman, Coexistence in a model of competition in the chemostat incorporating
discrete delays, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 49 (1989), 859870.
[21] J. Guckenheimer and P. Holmes, Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems and Bifurcations of Vector Fields,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.
[22] J. Huisman and F. J. Weissing, Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos, Nature, 402 (1999),
407410.
[23] J. Huisman and F. J. Weissing, Fundamental unpredictability in multispecies competition, Am. Nat., 157 (2001),
488494.
[24] A. L. Koch, Competitive coexistence of two predators utilizing the same prey under constant environmental
conditions, J. Theor. Biol., 44 (1974), 378386.
[25] M. R. S. Kulenovic and M. Nurkanovic, Asymptotic behavior of a two dimensional linear fractional system of
difference equations, Radovi Mathematicki, 11 (2002), 119.
[26] P. H. Leslie and J. C. Gower, The properties of a stochastic model for two competing species, Biometrika, 45
(1958), 316330.
[27] P. H. Leslie, T. Park and D. B. Mertz, The effect of varying the initial numbers on the outcome of competition
between two Tribolium species, J. Anim. Ecol., 37 (1968), 923.
[28] R. Levins, Coexistence in a variable environment, Am. Nat., 114 (1979), 765783.
[29] B. Li, Periodic coexistence in the chemostat with three species competing for three essential resources,
Math. Biosci., 174 (2001), 2740.
[30] Pingzhou Liu and Saber N. Elaydi, Discrete competitive and cooperative models of Lotka-Volterra type,
J. Comp. Anal. Appl., 3(1) (2001), 5373.
[31] M. Loreau and W. Ebenhoh, Competitive exclusion and coexistence of species with complex life cycles,
Theor. Popul. Biol., 46 (1994), 5877.
[32] R. McGehee and R. Armstrong, Some mathematical problems concerning the ecological principle of
competitive exclusion, J. Diff. Eqns, 23 (1977), 3052.
[33] P. de Mottoni and A. Schiafno, Competition systems with periodic coefcients: a geometric approach,
J. Math. Biol., 11 (1981), 319355.
[34] T. Namba, Competitive coexistence in a seasonally uctuating environment, J. Theor. Biol., 111 (1984),
369386.
[35] T. Namba, Bifurcation phenomena appearing in the Lotka-Volterra competition equations: a numerical study,
Math. Biosci., 81 (1986), 191212.
[36] T. Namba and S. Takahashi, Competitive coexistence in a seasonally uctuating environment. II. Multiple
stable states and invasion success, Theor. Popul. Biol., 44 (1993), 374402.
[37] T. Park, Experimental studies of interspecies competition. I. Competition between populations of the our
beetles Tribolium confusum Duval and Tribolium castaneum Herbst, Ecol. Monogr., 18 (1948), 265308.
[38] T. Park, Experimental studies of interspecies competition. II. Temperature, humidity and competition in two
species of Tribolium, Physiol. Zool., 27 (1954), 177238.
[39] T. Park, Experimental studies of interspecies competition. III. Relation of initial species proportion to the
competitive outcome in populations of Tribolium, Physiol. Zool., 30 (1957), 2240.
[40] T. Park, P. H. Leslie and D. B. Mertz, Genetic strains and competition in populations of Tribolium, Physiol.
Zool., 37 (1964), 97162.
[41] H. L. Smith and P. Waltman, The Theory of the Chemostat: Dynamics of Microbial Competition Cambridge
Studies in Mathematical Biology 13, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
[42] P. Waltman, Competition Models in Population Biology, CBMS-NSF regional Conference Series in Applied
Mathematics, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1983.
COMPETITION MODELS AND EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE 1151